DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the RCE filed 09/02/2026 entering the amendments and remarks filed 08/05/2026 in which claims 1 and 19-20 have been amended and claims 1-4, 6-17 and 19-25 are pending and ready for examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/02/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 02 SEPTEMBER 2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has/have been considered. An initialed copy of Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-17, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0232371 A1 (hereinafter “Anantharamaiah”) in view of US 2008/0120954 (hereinafter “Duello”) and US 2019/0224609 A1 (hereinafter “Niki).
Regarding claim 1, 3-4 and 12 Anantharamaiah discloses
a fibrous filtration media comprising a wet-laid [0007], fibrous web (Abstract, [0004]-[0005], [0014] comprising:
bicomponent fibers dispersed throughout the fibrous web which may be “greater than or equal to about 20 wt%” and “less than or equal to 80 wt%”, based on total weight of the fibrous web, [0045]-[0049]; that may be staple length [0053], [0069]; may comprise a thermoplastic polymer, and a sheath and a core where the sheath and core have different melting temperature [0045], and
where the remainder (up to 100%) may be other synthetic fibers, where the synthetic fibers may be staple length [0040]-[0042], [0053], [0069] and may be polyester including polyethylene terephthalate (PET) [0042],
the binder/bicomponent staple fibers may have an average diameter of greater than or equal to 1 micron [0052];
wherein the other synthetic staple fibers may have an average diameter of 0.5-15 or greater than 20 micron (i.e. as it is a mix of the fine and coarse fibers); [0034]-[0038];
wherein the fibrous web has a dry Mullen burst strength of as much as “greater than or equal to about 240 psi” [0059] (where the dry burst strength is not limited to any particular measuring method and thus it is seen as obvious to use a dry burst strength of greater than or equal to about 500 kPa as measured by any test for dry burst strength), which overlaps the range claimed; and
wherein the wet-laid nonwoven layer may comprise bicomponent binder fibers, and further discloses that no other layers are required [0023], i.e. the wet-laid layer alone is disclosed. It is not disclosed however how those binder fibers are actually used to bind the nonwoven media, though it is well known in the art to heat the bicomponent binder fibers to achieve the binding within the single layer.
With regard to the density, it is not directly disclosed however the basis weight may be “less than or equal to 110 g/m2” [0062] and the thickness may be “less than or equal to about 2 mm” [0063]; and thus calculating the density from within those ranges with a basis weight of 110 g/m2, all thickness less than 0.55 mm will have a density of 0.20 g/cm3 or higher; and thus the range of densities which are disclosed/calculated inherently by the combination of basis weight and thickness ranges disclosed overlaps the range claimed.
Anantharamaiah does not disclose (1) where the bicomponent staple fiber’s sheath and core each comprise a polyester comprising ethylene terephthalate repeat units, and the wet-laid nonwoven fibrous web being hot area-calendared at a temperature of about 110 °C to 250 °C in the absence of any other layer of the fibrous filtration media or (2) embossed only one side in the absence of any other layer of the fibrous filtration media.
However, with regard to (1) the bicomponent fibers’ core and sheath material and being hot area-calendared at a temperature of about 110 °C to 250 °C in the absence of any other layer of the fibrous filtration media, as detailed above; Duello discloses a similar non-woven filtration media, comprising a bonded mix of different, discontinuous, thermoplastic resin fibers; wherein the fibers comprise:
0 percent to about 90 percent of staple length fibers having a denier of 10 or greater and about 10 percent to about 100 percent of the fibers having a denier of 4 or less. About 30 percent to about 85 percent of the fibers will be conjugate fibers [0008],
the synthetic fibers include thermoplastic polymer fibers such as one or more of polyester, polyolefin and polyamide. Typically, at least some of the polymer fibers will be conjugate fibers. Advantageously, about 30 percent to about 85 percent of the polymer fibers will be conjugate fibers, wherein the conjugate fibers comprise a sheath and a core, and a first thermoplastic polymeric material having a first melting point, a second thermoplastic polymeric material having a second melting point that is different [0022]; wherein the synthetic fibers and the conjugate fibers comprise polyester, including sepficially a sheath/core fiber have different melting temperature PET [0061], [0065], Tables 2-4; and
the nonwoven filtration media is thermally bonded by “flat platens, rollers, rollers having projections and combinations thereof”, including thermal calendaring in order to impart integrity to each individual layer by bonding filaments and/or fibers within each layer at a temperature of from 300-420°F (148-215 °C), [0008], [0015]-[0016], [0047], [0070]; and
the web having a density including values over 0.20 g/cm3; See Tables 2-4, Example 1, has been calculated to have a density of 0.3 g/m3, from the 171 gsm and basis weight and thickness of 0.07 inches, and where the other examples have similar densities.
The specific type of polyester used for the non-conjugate fibers is not disclosed, but as the polyester of the conjugate fibers is PET it would have been obvious to use PET as the polyester for the other polyester fibers too.
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the media of Anantharamaiah by (A) using bicomponent fibers which are formed of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), wherein the PET forming the sheath has a melting temperature which is less than that of the PET forming the core as disclosed by Duello because this involves the simple substitution of known bicomponent core/sheath fibers used in similar nonwoven filter materials, to obtain the predictable result of forming a non-woven filter and further by (B) boding together the bicomponent fibers in the nonwoven via heated calendaring at 148-215 °C as disclosed by Duello because this involves using a known process to bind a wet-laid nonwoven filter web comprising bicomponent binder fibers to achieve the predictable result of forming a successful nonwoven filter material, and to improve the strength of the nonwoven formed.
With regard to (2) embossing, the fibrous web may be embossed Anantharamaiah [0103], but does not disclose wherein only one side of the fibrous web may comprise an embossing. However, Niki discloses it is known to emboss only one side of a nonwoven filter material so that the different sides “can be distinguished to prevent the front and back sides from being mistakenly switched” [0107]-0110].
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the media of Anantharamaiah in view of Duello by embossing only one side of the fibrous filtration media as disclosed by Niki so that the different sides “can be distinguished to prevent the front and back sides from being mistakenly switched” [0107]-0110].
Thus in the combined invention of Anantharamaiah in view of Duello and Niki the other synthetic fibers may be PET (Anantharamaiah [0042]), and the biocomponent staple fibers have a core and sheath comprising PET (Duello Tables 2-4); thus they all comprise the same polyester comprising ethylene terephthalate repeat units.
Since the ranges disclosed overlaps the range claimed, the ranges recited in the claims are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Anantharamaiah’s ranges that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 2 Anantharamaiah in view of Duello and Niki discloses the fibrous filtration media according to claim 1, wherein Anantharamaiah discloses the fibrous web has an MD stiffness of greater than or equal to about 200 mg and less than or equal to about 3500 mg ([0056], Claim 19), which overlaps the range claimed.
Since the range disclosed overlaps the range claimed, the range recited in the claim in considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Anantharamaiah’s range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Further, with regard to the material properties after hot oil aging, since the composition is the same as the composition recited in claims 1 and 2, it is asserted, absent evidence to the contrary, that one would reasonably expect that the media disclosed by Anantharamaiah in view of Duello and Niki inherently has the same properties as the media recited in claim 2. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 6 Anantharamaiah in view of Duello and Niki discloses the fibrous filtration media according to claim 1 wherein Anantharamaiah discloses the web comprise less than 1 wt. % glass fibers [0089].
Regarding claim 7 Anantharamaiah in view of Duello and Niki discloses the fibrous filtration media according to claim 1 wherein Anantharamaiah discloses the other synthetic staple fibers may comprise a mixture of at least two different types of synthetic fibers [0042].
Regarding claim 8 Anantharamaiah in view of Duello and Niki discloses the fibrous filtration media according to claim 1, wherein Anantharamaiah discloses the other synthetic staple fibers may be regenerated cellulose [0042], and may be included in a wide range of percentages [0032]-[0037], [0040], overlapping those claimed.
Since the range disclosed overlaps the range claimed, the range recited in the claim in considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Anantharamaiah’s range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 9 Anantharamaiah in view of Duello and Niki discloses the fibrous filtration media according to claim 1, wherein Anantharamaiah discloses the filtration media further comprises fire retardants [0043].
Regarding claim 10 Anantharamaiah in view of Duello and Niki discloses the fibrous filtration media according to claim 1, wherein Anantharamaiah discloses the other synthetic staple fibers are forms of a polymer selected from the group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyethylene (PE), polypropylenes (PP), various nylons, and combinations thereof [0042].
Regarding claim 11 Anantharamaiah in view of Duello and Niki discloses the fibrous filtration media according to claim 1, wherein Anantharamaiah discloses the other synthetic staple fibers may be present at wide range of percentages [0032]-[0037], [0040], overlapping those claimed.
Since the range disclosed overlaps the range claimed, the range recited in the claim in considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Anantharamaiah’s range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 13 Anantharamaiah in view of Duello and Niki discloses the fibrous filtration media according to claim 1, wherein Anantharamaiah discloses the bicomponent staple fibers are sheath-core bicomponent stable fibers [0045].
Regarding claim 14 Anantharamaiah in view of Duello and Niki discloses the fibrous filtration media according to claim 13, wherein the bicomponent fibers may be formed of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), wherein the PET forming the sheath has a melting temperature which is less than that of the PET forming the core; supra, Duello Tables 2-4.
Regarding claim 15 Anantharamaiah in view of Duello and Niki discloses the fibrous filtration media according to claim 1, wherein the fibrous web is not specially disclosed to have a Pore Size Range of 30 μm or less, however Anantharamaiah discloses that fiber pore size affects filtration performance of the media [0003], and is therefore a result effective variable. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize appropriate pore size, including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired filter performance.
Regarding claim 16 Anantharamaiah in view of Duello and Niki discloses the fibrous filtration media according to claim 1, wherein Anantharamaiah discloses the filtration media has a particle removal efficiency of greater than or equal to 95+% [0065], which overlaps the range claimed.
Since the range disclosed overlaps the range claimed, the range recited in the claim in considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Anantharamaiah’s range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 17 Anantharamaiah in view of Duello and Niki discloses a filter element comprising the filtration media of claim 1, and with regard to it being “for use in hot oil filtration”, this is merely a functional limitation of the disclosed filter. This functional limitation does not further define over the prior art because the structure disclosed by Anantharamaiah in view of Duello and Niki would be capable of such use as claimed; Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anantharamaiah in view of Duello and Niki further in view of WO 2016/070039 A1 (hereinafter “Arrington”).
Regarding claim 2 Anantharamaiah in view of Duello and Niki discloses the fibrous filtration media according to claim 1, wherein Anantharamaiah discloses the fibrous web has an MD stiffness of greater than or equal to about 200 mg and less than or equal to about 3500 mg ([0056], Claim 19), which overlaps the range claimed.
Since the range disclosed overlaps the range claimed, the range recited in the claim in considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Anantharamaiah’s range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Anantharamaiah does not specifically the stiffness after hot oil aging of the fibrous filtration media in engine oil at a temperature of 150 °C for a time of 168 hours.
However Arrington discloses a similar fibrous filtration media wherein it is disclosed that it should have sufficient stiffness to not collapse or bow excessively when subjected to oil pressure typically encountered in combustion engines, and discloses stiffnesses in the range claimed, and also tests hot oil aged burst strength and thus discloses the importance of mechanically stability of the media after hot oil ageing; Abstract, [0011], [0030], [0069], [0071], Table 1. Thus the stiffness of the filter media total and each layer, including after hot oil aging by any procedure that replicates engine oil use including that claimed, is a variable which achieves a recognized result, and it would therefore have been obvious for one of skill in the art to optimize this variable through routine experimentation, by using values including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anantharamaiah in view of Duello.
Regarding claim 19 Anantharamaiah discloses a method of making a fibrous web comprising:
a fibrous filtration media comprising a wet-laid [0007], hot area calendared [0022], [0073], [0101] nonwoven fibrous web (Abstract, [0004]-[0005], [0014] comprising:
bicomponent fibers dispersed throughout the fibrous web which may be “greater than or equal to about 20 wt%” and “less than or equal to 80 wt%”, based on total weight of the fibrous web, [0045]-[0049]; that may be staple length [0053], [0069]; may comprise a thermoplastic polymer, and a sheath and a core where the sheath and core have different melting temperature [0045], and
where the remainder (up to 100%) may be other synthetic fibers, where the synthetic fibers may be staple length [0040]-[0042], [0053], [0069] and may be polyester including polyethylene terephthalate (PET) [0042],
the binder/bicomponent staple fibers may have an average diameter of greater than or equal to 1 micron [0052];
wherein the other synthetic staple fibers may have an average diameter of 0.5-15 or greater than 20 micron (i.e. as it is a mix of the fine and coarse fibers); [0034]-[0038];
wherein the fibrous web has a dry Mullen burst strength of as much as “greater than or equal to about 240 psi” [0059], which overlaps the range claimed;
with regard to the density, it is not directly disclosed however the basis weight may be “less than or equal to 110 g/m2” [0062] and the thickness may be “less than or equal to about 2 mm” [0063]; and thus calculating the density from within those ranges with a basis weight of 110 g/m2, all thickness less than 0.55 mm will have a density of 0.20 g/cm3 or higher; and thus the range of densities which are disclosed/calculated inherently by the combination of basis weight and thickness ranges disclosed overlaps the range claimed.
The web is formed via a process of:
a. forming a wet-laid fibrous web from an aqueous fibrous slurry [0090] comprising the synthetic staple fibers and bicomponent staple fibers in the amounts as cited above;
b. subjecting the wet-laid fibrous web from step a to hot area calendaring [0022], [0073], [0101] to melt the sheath of the bicomponent staple fibers so as to bond the synthetic staple fibers one to another [0045] and
achieve a fibrous web having the properties as describe above.
With regard to subjecting the wet-laid fibrous web from step a to hot area calendering in the absence of any other layers to melt the sheath of the bicomponent staple fibers so as to bond the synthetic staple fibers one to another, as detailed above Anantharamaiah discloses that the wet-laid nonwoven layer may comprise bicomponent binder fibers, and further discloses that no other layers are required, i.e. the wet-laid layer alone is disclosed. It is not disclosed however how those binder fibers are actually used to bind the nonwoven media, though it is well known in the art to heat the bicomponent binder fibers to achieve the binding.
Anantharamaiah thus does not disclose (1) where the bicomponent staple fiber’s sheath and core each comprise a polyester comprising ethylene terephthalate repeat units, (2) the wet-laid nonwoven fibrous web being hot area-calendared at a temperature of about 110 °C to 250 °C in the absence of any other layer of the fibrous filtration media or (3) embossed only one side in the absence of any other layer of the fibrous filtration media.
However, with regard to (1) the bicomponent fibers’ core and sheath material and being hot area-calendared at a temperature of about 110 °C to 250 °C in the absence of any other layer of the fibrous filtration media, as detailed above; Duello discloses a similar non-woven filtration media, comprising a bonded mix of different, discontinuous, thermoplastic resin fibers; wherein the fibers comprise:
0 percent to about 90 percent of staple length fibers having a denier of 10 or greater and about 10 percent to about 100 percent of the fibers having a denier of 4 or less. About 30 percent to about 85 percent of the fibers will be conjugate fibers [0008],
the synthetic fibers include thermoplastic polymer fibers such as one or more of polyester, polyolefin and polyamide. Typically, at least some of the polymer fibers will be conjugate fibers. Advantageously, about 30 percent to about 85 percent of the polymer fibers will be conjugate fibers, wherein the conjugate fibers comprise a sheath and a core, and a first thermoplastic polymeric material having a first melting point, a second thermoplastic polymeric material having a second melting point that is different [0022]; wherein the synthetic fibers and the conjugate fibers comprise polyester, including sepficially a sheath/core fiber have different melting temperature PET [0061], [0065], Tables 2-4; and
the nonwoven filtration media is thermally bonded by “flat platens, rollers, rollers having projections and combinations thereof”, including thermal calendaring in order to impart integrity to each individual layer by bonding filaments and/or fibers within each layer at a temperature of from 300-420°F (148-215 °C), [0008], [0015]-[0016], [0047], [0070]; and
the web having a density including values over 0.20 g/cm3; See Tables 2-4, Example 1, has been calculated to have a density of 0.3 g/m3, from the 171 gsm and basis weight and thickness of 0.07 inches, and where the other examples have similar densities.
The specific type of polyester used for the non-conjugate fibers is not disclosed, but as the polyester of the conjugate fibers is PET it would have been obvious to use PET as the polyester for the other polyester fibers too.
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the media of Anantharamaiah by (A) using bicomponent fibers which are formed of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), wherein the PET forming the sheath has a melting temperature which is less than that of the PET forming the core as disclosed by Duello because this involves the simple substitution of known bicomponent core/sheath fibers used in similar nonwoven filter materials, to obtain the predictable result of forming a non-woven filter and further by (B) boding together the bicomponent fibers in the nonwoven via heated calendaring at 148-215 °C as disclosed by Duello because this involves using a known process to bind a wet-laid nonwoven filter web comprising bicomponent binder fibers to achieve the predictable result of forming a successful nonwoven filter material, and to improve the strength of the nonwoven formed.
Thus in the combined invention of Anantharamaiah in view of Duello the other synthetic fibers may be PET (Anantharamaiah [0042]), and the biocomponent staple fibers have a core and sheath comprising PET (Duello Tables 2-4); thus they all comprise the same polyester comprising ethylene terephthalate repeat units.
Since the ranges disclosed overlaps the range claimed, the ranges recited in the claims are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Anantharamaiah’s ranges that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anantharamaiah in view of Duello further in view of US 2012/0097037 A1 (hereinafter “Matsuda”).
Regarding claim 20 Anantharamaiah in view of Duello discloses the method according to claim 19, but does not disclose wherein step b is practiced at a calendaring pressure condition of between about 1 kN/m to about 150 kN/m with a calendaring line speed of between about 1 m/min to about 50 m/min.
However Matsuda discloses a nonwoven filter material (Abstract, [0023]), wherein the calendaring and embossing conditions including pressure and speed are known in the art to be adjusted to each suitable polymer and for their effect on the final product [0064]-[0066]. And thus calendaring and embossing conditions including pressure and speed are known result effective variables. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize appropriate calendaring and embossing conditions including pressure and speed, including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired filter performance.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anantharamaiah in view of Duello and further in view of Niki.
Regarding claim 21 Anantharamaiah in view of Duello discloses the method according to claim 19, wherein the fibrous web may be embossed Anantharamaiah [0103], but does not disclose subjecting only one side of the fibrous web to embossing in the absence of any other layers.
However, Niki discloses it is known to emboss only one side of a nonwoven filter material so that the different sides “can be distinguished to prevent the front and back sides from being mistakenly switched” [0107]-0110].
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the media of Anantharamaiah in view of Duello by embossing only one side of the fibrous filtration media as disclosed by Niki so that the different sides “can be distinguished to prevent the front and back sides from being mistakenly switched” [0107]-0110].
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anantharamaiah in view of Duello and Niki further in view of US 2012/0097037 A1 (hereinafter “Matsuda”).
Regarding claim 22 Anantharamaiah in view of Duello and Niki discloses the method according to claim 21, wherein the thermal calendering is performed at 300-420°F (148-215 °C), and thus this would have been an obvious temperature to perform the embossing, i.e. to do the embossing at the same time as calendering; but does not disclose wherein step c is practiced at an embossing pressure condition of between about 1 and 20 kgf/cm, and at an embossing machine speed of about 1 to 20 m/min.
However Matsuda discloses a nonwoven filter material (Abstract, [0023]), wherein the calendaring and embossing conditions including pressure and speed are known in the art to be adjusted to each suitable polymer and for their effect on the final product [0064]-[0066]. And thus calendaring and embossing conditions including pressure and speed are known result effective variables. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B). Case law holds that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize appropriate calendaring and embossing conditions including pressure and speed, including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired filter performance.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anantharamaiah.
Regarding claim 23 Anantharamaiah discloses a filter consisting of a single layer filter element, the single layer filter element consisting of
a filter media consisting of single layer wet-laid nonwoven fibrous web (Abstract, [0004]-[0005], [0007], [0014], wherein the filter media may consist of only the single layer 15 of wet-laid non-woven [0023], and the media may be incorporated into a filter element including a housing, or simply by folding a single sheet into a bag [0107]-[0112]; thus the filter media itself (or with housing) may be considered “a filter comprising a single layer filter element having only one layer consisting of a fibrous filtration media having a single layer of a wet-laid nonwoven fibrous web” as claimed,); comprising:
bicomponent fibers dispersed throughout the fibrous web which may be “greater than or equal to about 20 wt%” and “less than or equal to 80 wt%”, based on total weight of the fibrous web, [0045]-[0049]; that may be staple length [0053], [0069]; and
where the remainder (up to 100%) may be other synthetic fibers, where the synthetic fibers may be staple length [0040]-[0042], [0053], [0069];
the binder/bicomponent staple fibers may have an average diameter of greater than or equal to 1 micron [0052];
wherein the other synthetic staple fibers may have an average diameter of 0.5-15 or greater than 20 micron (i.e. as it is a mix of the fine and coarse fibers); [0034]-[0038];
wherein the fibrous web has a dry Mullen burst strength of as much as “greater than or equal to about 240 psi” [0059] (where the dry burst strength is not limited to any particular measuring method and thus it is seen as obvious to use a dry burst strength of greater than or equal to about 500 kPa as measured by any test for dry burst strength), which overlaps the range claimed;
wherein the density is not directly disclosed however the basis weight may be “less than or equal to 110 g/m2” [0062] and the thickness may be “less than or equal to about 2 mm” [0063]; and thus calculating the density from within those ranges with a basis weight of 110 g/m2, all thickness less than 0.55 mm will have a density of 0.20 g/cm3 or higher; and thus the range of densities which are disclosed/calculated inherently by the combination of basis weight and thickness ranges disclosed overlaps the range claimed;
wherein the filter media may consist of only the single layer 15 of wet-laid non-woven [0023], and the media may be incorporated into a filter element including a housing, or simply by folding a single sheet into a bag [0107]-[0112]; thus the filter media itself (or with housing) may be considered to be a filter consisting of a single layer filter element, the single layer filter element consisting of the nonwoven fibrous web as claimed.
Since the ranges disclosed overlaps the range claimed, the ranges recited in the claims are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Anantharamaiah’s ranges that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 24-25 are rejected under Anantharamaiah in view of Niki.
Regarding claim 24 Anantharamaiah discloses the filter of claim 23, wherein the single layer filtration media has a first side and a second side opposite the first side (inherently, and see Fig. 1A) and the fibrous web may be embossed Anantharamaiah [0103], but does not disclose only the second surface of the single layer fibrous filtration media comprising an embossing.
However, Niki discloses it is known to emboss only one side of a nonwoven filter material so that the different sides “can be distinguished to prevent the front and back sides from being mistakenly switched” [0107]-0110].
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the media of Anantharamaiah by embossing only one side of the fibrous filtration media as disclosed by Niki so that the different sides “can be distinguished to prevent the front and back sides from being mistakenly switched” [0107]-0110].
Regarding claim 24 Anantharamaiah in view of Niki discloses the filter of claim 24, but is silent to any specific flow direction through the media, and thus does not disclose wherein the single layer fibrous filtration media is positioned in the filter with the first surface facing the upstream and the second surface facing the downstream.
However, since no specific flow direction is required, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try using either side as the upstream side, because this involves the simple choice between two finite options.
Response to Amendment
The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-4, 6-17 and 19-22 are withdrawn in view of the Applicants’ arguments and amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2026 have been fully considered, but they are now moot because they are directed in their entirety to grounds of rejection which are no longer cited in the current action and the new limitations of the amended claims which had not been previously addressed. See the updated rejection above citing a new combination of references to address the amended claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric J. McCullough whose telephone number is (571)272-8885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin L Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC J MCCULLOUGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
